21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

Don't be rude, both of you!

Let me see if I can explain how the technical press work. We receive
press releases. Some rewrite the press release in their own words and
publish it. I prefer to just publish the press release until I have
something meaningful to say from actually using the camera (if that is
what we are talking about). Each magazine, whether online or in print
does this, in their own way.

CHeers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:48 am, Not Disclosed wrote:
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Hi All,
The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071
Cheers,
Wayne
So how long have you been a shill for Canon??

I thought Wayne was a Nikon shill?

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"frederick" wrote:
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Hi All,

The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071

Pretty impressive, but you can get a medium format Mamiya ZD for $1,000
less.

Mamiya says US$9,999. Where are you seeing it for US$7,000???

http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Ooops - it's the ZD back for $7k.
You get a "kit" lens with the $10k ZD package.
But if it's the same 80mm f2.8 lens as listed at B&H, then it's a $600 lens.

Darn - I was going to try that to get my wife to allow me to buy one -
"but see - it's less expensive than that one".

Back to reality, as nice as it is, I think that the 40d for $1299 is
more of a shake up to the DSLR market than the "long expected" IDsIII.

On Aug 21, 1:17 am, frederick wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"frederick" wrote:
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Hi All,

The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071

Pretty impressive, but you can get a medium format Mamiya ZD for $1,000
less.

Mamiya says US$9,999. Where are you seeing it for US$7,000???

http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Ooops - it's the ZD back for $7k.
You get a "kit" lens with the $10k ZD package.
But if it's the same 80mm f2.8 lens as listed at B&H, then it's a $600 lens.

Darn - I was going to try that to get my wife to allow me to buy one -
"but see - it's less expensive than that one".

Back to reality, as nice as it is, I think that the 40d for $1299 is
more of a shake up to the DSLR market than the "long expected" IDsIII.

Well, what's so surprising about it? Take the specs of the 30D,
increase everything a bit, and there you go. The same as every time.
Just like the 1d mkiii was, and so on.

acl wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:17 am, frederick wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"frederick" wrote:
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Hi All,
The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071
Pretty impressive, but you can get a medium format Mamiya ZD for $1,000
less.
Mamiya says US$9,999. Where are you seeing it for US$7,000???
http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Ooops - it's the ZD back for $7k.
You get a "kit" lens with the $10k ZD package.
But if it's the same 80mm f2.8 lens as listed at B&H, then it's a $600 lens.

Darn - I was going to try that to get my wife to allow me to buy one -
"but see - it's less expensive than that one".

Back to reality, as nice as it is, I think that the 40d for $1299 is
more of a shake up to the DSLR market than the "long expected" IDsIII.

Well, what's so surprising about it? Take the specs of the 30D,
increase everything a bit, and there you go. The same as every time.
Just like the 1d mkiii was, and so on.

IMO, the surprise is that, as you say, they increased *everything* a bit.

acl wrote:

Well, what's so surprising about it? Take the specs of the 30D,
increase everything a bit, and there you go. The same as every time.
Just like the 1d mkiii was, and so on.

Nothing says you have to upgrade *every* time. You can keep camera 'a'
for a few years, then jump to camera 'd' a few years later. Otherwise
the $/benefit ratio is rather low.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Aug 21, 4:13 am, Alan Browne
wrote:
acl wrote:
Well, what's so surprising about it? Take the specs of the 30D,
increase everything a bit, and there you go. The same as every time.
Just like the 1d mkiii was, and so on.

Nothing says you have to upgrade *every* time. You can keep camera 'a'
for a few years, then jump to camera 'd' a few years later. Otherwise
the $/benefit ratio is rather low.


Yes of course I agree. I was making a remark on frederick's comment
that
Back to reality, as nice as it is, I think that the 40d for $1299 is
more of a shake up to the DSLR market than the "long expected" IDsIII.
ie the 40D isn't that surprising (I thought, at least).

acl wrote in
oups.com:

So if there's a test somewhere there about the 14-bit ADCs, I missed
it Any links?

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/76001165

This is levels 0-255 (in the green channel) out of the 14256 levels of a
1Dmk3 ISO 100 file, with 14-bit, 12-bit, 11-bit, and 10-bit precision from
the original RAW. The mathematical conversions to RGB are all performed
with the same precision, though, as they were padded with zeros to replace
the truncated bits.

My padding of the zeros is probably key in getting almost exactly the same
results between 14-bit and 12-bit, and unfortunately, the masses are going
to draw the wrong conclusions about why they seem to get better results
with the 14-bit files; it may very well be that most or all of the benefit
comes from forcing conversion software to use two more bits of precision;
something they should have been doing anyway.

--


John P Sheehy

"Not Disclosed" wrote in message
. com...
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Hi All,

The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071

Cheers,

Wayne

So how long have you been a shill for Canon??


I thought he was shill for dimagemaker?

John Sheehy wrote:
acl wrote in
oups.com:

So if there's a test somewhere there about the 14-bit ADCs, I missed
it Any links?

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/76001165

This is levels 0-255 (in the green channel) out of the 14256 levels of a
1Dmk3 ISO 100 file, with 14-bit, 12-bit, 11-bit, and 10-bit precision from
the original RAW. The mathematical conversions to RGB are all performed
with the same precision, though, as they were padded with zeros to replace
the truncated bits.

I didn't understand. How did you truncate, did you simply replace the
2 lowest bits by zeros or what?


My padding of the zeros is probably key in getting almost exactly the same
results between 14-bit and 12-bit, and unfortunately, the masses are going
to draw the wrong conclusions about why they seem to get better results
with the 14-bit files; it may very well be that most or all of the benefit
comes from forcing conversion software to use two more bits of precision;
something they should have been doing anyway.

On Aug 21, 12:10 pm, SmartGuy wrote:

I read the specs at dpreview. I still wouldn't buy it. While the (finally!) 2x
resolution increase would be nice over a 5mpx camera, I get the very same
features in my S3 IS with CHDK and can take the very same resolution as the 1Ds
with a 4-panel stitched frame, plus so many more features that the 1Ds can never
have. Minus all the hundred or so drawbacks that any DSLR has over any P&S
camera.

They can keep it.

Only fools out to impress an uneducated client would buy it.

I think it's time to change your screen name.